ef conspirators, Hillquit's
"Call." The issue of August 31, 1919, declared: "The convention will
adopt a stand, expressed in a manifesto that is expected to satisfy all
those in the Left Wing who are contending for what they believe to be
revolutionary principles." In the issue of September 3 we read:

"There will be a restatement of party principles which is expected
to cut the ground from under the feet of the former members and
organizations of the party who have read themselves out and will
remain suspended in mid-air between the newly formed and still more
newly revised Communist-Labor Party and the Communist Party."

In the "Call" of September 5, which published the manifesto, we also
have this comment on it by James Oneal: "The American movement can
congratulate itself on having produced such a splendid document. It will
tend to rally members who have been uncertain of the outcome of the
convention, and will eventually bring to us many who are sick of the
hypocrisies, the shams and the illusions that have held them in chains
for nearly three tragic years."

What hypocrisies, shams and illusions are referred to? Who were their
authors? In another column of the same issue we are told: "With every
delegate on his feet and cheering, the National Emergency Convention of
the Socialist Party unanimously adopted its manifesto this afternoon.
[September 4th.] It was the big moment of the convention. The document
is regarded as the most revolutionary the party has ever drawn up, and
one certain to bring back into the organization thousands of members
temporarily outside of it, either because their local organizations were
expelled or by reason of what Lenine has called 'the intoxication of the
revolutionary phrase.'"

Thus this manifesto was adopted by the wreckers of the Socialist Party
to hold the "revolutionary" rank and file still left them and to draw
back the revolutionary seceders--minus their leaders, of course.
Nevertheless the manifesto is truly revolutionary--"most
revolutionary"--the revolutionary creed of a revolutionary organization.
It is, of course, carefully worded, so as to deceive if possible that
public whose intelligence the cynical Socialists despise at the same
time that they appeal to it for votes, and this careful wording we can
understand from a comment in the "Call" of September 5, 1919: "Before
reading the manifesto, Block told the convention the manifesto was
largel